Was Batman's Bane Using Libertarian Talking Points?

I would like to suggest that Bane doesn’t equal Bain Capital, as Rush Limbaugh suggests, he represents Libertarianism at its finest! He regularly
quotes, “I am giving the city back to the people.” Or just states, “Back to the people.” He wants Gotham to be run by the people!

Because of the massive police force that was explained to have kept the city safe due to the “Dent Act.” We get 1000 criminals locked up! When
Bane takes over the city he lets them go because of unfair laws and acts of injustice from a system that he doesn’t like and wants to change.

I think Bane hates Batman because he was a rival of his in the League of Shadows and he knows Bruce Wayne got rich off the system that he hates. So he
wants to destroy not only Bruce’s foundation, company, and wealth. He wants to kill all of the rich. Enter Occupy Wall Street which did at one point
interrupt filming of this very movie! So there is no doubt that they would be included in the movie.

The police (which libertarians despise) are soon trapped inside the sewer systems when Bane blows up all the roads. (Somehow they don’t die...)
Note how roads are also government funded.

Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman is a cat burglar who also hates the system. I think she would be a liberal. She doesn’t care about what Bane cares about.
She just wants to see change. She wants the rich to suffer because she “takes from them because they can afford it.” How many times have you heard
Obama say that?

However, seeming that she is in on Bane’s plan she knows what he wants and knows what he is going to do. She states, “There’s a storm coming,
Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches. Because when it hits you’re all going to wonder how you ever thought you could live
so large and leave so little for the rest of us.“ So how many of our conspiracy loving, market crashing, doomsdayer libertarian friends have you
heard this from?

Bruce Wayne himself seems to be at odds with his Batman Persona once again. They have apparently switched places. Batman is now fighting on behalf of
the government and Gotham because he loves Gotham and was the reason he moved there in the beginning. However, he seems to forget why he moved there
at all. It was to stop the crime that ended up with the death of his parents. Bane is without a doubt a terrorist, but Bruce Wayne knows firsthand the
corruption that goes on in Gotham and the corruption that goes on without him.

It seems that at the end of the film Batman and Bruce Wayne had become one. Alfred even says, “You're not Batman anymore.” Alfred of course never
wanted Bruce Wayne to become batman in the first place as he talked about his dream for Bruce Wayne about having a family and not getting killed in
all of this craziness.

So where does that place batman on the political scale? I don’t think Batman cares about politics. Just what’s right. Bane was not right for
Gotham. So he stopped him.

Of course, the very nature of libertarians allow them to tell me that I am dead wrong thinking that Bane is a libertarian. Just because I synonymously
placed Libertarian and Bane in the same sentence. Few of you will have actually taken the time to analyze all that I have said here.

There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution.

So what do you think? Do you think Bane used libertarian talking points to seduce the people of Gotham into overthrowing their corrupt government
without realizing that his government would be worse?

So what do you think? Do you think Bane used libertarian talking points to seduce the people of Gotham into overthrowing their corrupt
government without realizing that his government would be worse?

*sigh*

No, jj3rd...did you even watch the movie? ***SPOILER ALERT***

Bane & co.'s goal was the destruction of Gotham. I'll leave it there in case someone peeked.

I would like to suggest that Bane doesn’t equal Bain Capital, as Rush Limbaugh suggests, he represents Libertarianism at its finest! He
regularly quotes, “I am giving the city back to the people.” Or just states, “Back to the people.” He wants Gotham to be run by the people!

That's a democracy you're talking about, not libertarianism (and as US libertarians are fond of pointing out, at least, definitely not a
constitutional republic, which is a type of democracy with some strict limits). A city "run by the people" according to libertarianism would have
everyone doing as they wished without anyone committing violence or coercion against anyone else or their property.

I was going to respond to the rest of your post point-by-point, but decided not to bother since you don't seem to have any solid grasp on what
libertarianism actually entails. Basically, if you're stepping on someone else's toes, you're not acting in libertarian fashion.

It's all about LIBERTY. Not anarchy or the hate of government. Any government that restrains itself to proper roles without limiting non-offensive
liberty is just fine. Anything beyond that is not.

i think Bane used whatever rhetoric he saw fitting at the time to rile up and divide the masses. if you label it Libertarian, or Occupy Wall Street,
or even some Tea Party Elements, etc. whatever... it worked for him.

i do not think Bane gave a sh!t about the political details, and would have just as readily preached some other ideology if it suited his purpose to
bring Gotham to its knees, which was his true agenda as a member of the League of Shadows.

hating the rich is just an easy way to rile up the folks... check out the French Revolution. returning the rights of the people to the people is an
easy way to rile people up... check out the American Revolution.

anyhow, though i thought TDKR was a bit of a mess in the editing department, it certainly has spawned some thought provoking dialogue. so there's
that.

As far as I could tell,while listening to Rush rant about this a couple weeks ago. He was pretty much saying that Obama,or the left,or somebody, wants
people to associate Bane with Bain capital,not Rush himself. And he said that he felt Bane was more of an OWS type of guy,in his opinion on the
matter.

anyhow, though i thought TDKR was a bit of a mess in the editing department, it certainly has spawned some thought provoking dialogue. so there's
that.

I definitely agree with you here. Maybe they did it purposely so no one political ideology could be identified in the movie. But you can't deny that
Bane used the libertarian talking points that so many use on this site!

honestly, if i had to label, i felt like his speeches were a mashup of OWS & Tea-Party... "i'm mad as hell and i'm not gonna take it anymore!" type
stuff. OWS is mad at the 1%, Tea-Party is mad at Big-Government.

so Gotham's 1% is maligned and attacked (the scene were the rich get their comeuppance) & Big Government is attacked (when the cops are attacked and
Harvey Dent is maligned).

in other words, Bane just exploited the rage that is simmering in all of us. he didn't care if the rage was Leftist or Rightist or whatervist... so
long as we were angry, he exploited it.

again, if i were labeling, there was just as many OWS elements in his speachifying than Libertarian.

but he didnt completely destroy gotham, just the rich people and the politicians that he didnt like and he gave control of the city over to the
criminals that aligned with his beliefs!

***SPOILER ALERT***

Ok, semi-spoiler alert because SOMEONE will see what I'm going to post, regardless. Had the film dragged on for another 5-minutes-or-less of movie
time, what would have happened to Gotham City?

(please, answer that internally if you know the answer...)

Regardless, what he did is NOT LIBERTARIAN. You're missing the entire point. Libertarianism doesn't espouse giving ANYONE control over ANYONE
else.

Please, before you continue, consider the terminology you're using and what it actually means. I know you don't like Ron Paul (for some odd reason)
and I know a good many of his supporters have rubbed you the wrong way. I know you may disagree with some of his views.

But that does not mean you understand what you've talking about here when you're using it to attack libertarianism. In short, the entire political
philosophy is summed up in "You should be able to do what you want with yourself or your own property as long as you don't infringe on anyone
else's right to do the same thing."

That is one of the many talking points libertarians say yes. But he used OTHERS!!! And the mashup of OWS talking points and Tea Party talking points
perfectly describes the talking points all libertarians throw at me!

Evil rich bankers that control everything suck
Cops are evil pigs that are corrupt
Government should be run by the people
Criminals are treated unfairly

People who call themselves libertarians have told me these statements before.

Bane did what every "champion of the people" has ever done. Use them to advance a personal agenda.
"The People" is the antithesis of the whole concept of Libertarianism, which is about individual liberty. "People" movements have always been
conceived to destroy the civil liberties of individuals.

that sounds about right... if we are going solely on his speeches and actions. but that was all a front and a means to manipulate the masses.

i do not think that he gave a sh!t about any particular agenda or ideology (revolutionary, leftist, rightest, etc.), and would have exploited whatever
ideology he saw fit at the time. if Gotham was a theocracy, he would have preached for the agnostics to rise up. if it was a godless communist state,
he would have preached for the spiritual to stand up. etc.

whatever he alluded too in all of his speeches had little to do with his TRUE agenda, as an agent of the League of Shadows. his speeches and actions
(including freeing the prisoners) were all part of his (and Talia's) greater purpose: to humiliate and destroy Gotham.

Bane is a villain in a story which includes heroes, anti-heroes and villains. It's not about politics just as Nolan has stated. It's classic story
telling that fits in with the environment of the times. Don't forget not everything is a conspiracy or contains political propaganda. Sometimes a
work of fiction is just that.

*Note- It should also be recognized by the OP that most modern libertarians in the US believe in the free market and have nothing against the rich.
They think the government should be limited socially/economically. That doesn't really fit Bane. Bane seems to be more of a traditional anarchist.

A villain (also known in film and literature as the "antagonist," "bad guy", "black hat", or "heavy") is an "evil" character in a story, whether a
historical narrative or, especially, a work of fiction. The villain usually is the antagonist, the character who tends to have a negative effect on
other characters.

Hero - Batman

The traditional hero type is classically depicted to possess an image that is larger than life. They are generally expected to be more physically
attractive, stronger, braver, cleverer or more charismatic than the average everyman.

Antihero - Cat woman

In fiction, an antihero[1] (sometimes antiheroine as the feminine) is generally considered to be a protagonist whose personality can be perceived
as being villainous and heroic at the same time, in contrast to the more perpetually noble characteristics of an archetypal hero. They may do bad
things but are not evil. They may fight villains, but not for the reason of justice, or if it is for the cause of justice will take an "ends justify
the means" stance. Their actions are motivated by their own personal desires, such as revenge. For example, an antihero may steal, vandalize, and
perform other "bad" acts but may do so for a good cause or even an unexamined motivation.

Unlikely Heroes - Blake/Comissioner

Unlikely heroes are simply characters who may not be conspicuously flawed, but simply ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances.

i agree, as Nolan has stated numerous times, it is not about any specific politics.

however, every Villain, Hero, Anti-Hero etc. has a motivation. and motivations oft time dabble in the same arenas as political ideologies do.

to pigeon hole a character's motivations into ONE ideologue (unless otherwise stated by the artist) is indeed rash and a disservice to the artist,
but we can certainly explore their motivations without fearing if we tread into some ideological territory or another.

That is one of the many talking points libertarians say yes. But he used OTHERS!!! And the mashup of OWS talking points and Tea Party talking points
perfectly describes the talking points all libertarians throw at me!

Sure I do - but people who supposedly claim something does not a follower of ideology or valid application of talking-point make.

Additionally, has Romney not used "libertarian" talking points? Has Obama not?

Evil rich bankers that control everything suck

I would have to call that true, and say it is not explicitly libertarian.

Cops are evil pigs that are corrupt

Sadly, disproportionate or no, too many are proving this true. Again, not explicitly libertarian.

Government should be run by the people

Now that's just a true statement of US founding ideology.

Criminals are treated unfairly

I suppose that depends on your definition of "criminal," but it certainly applies in some cases. As regards the Batman film, though, it's
apparently also valid as the actors admitted the prosecutions and imprisonment apparently depended on a lie (I'm still of mixed opinions on this one
- sure, Dent ended up failing, but that doesn't make what he accomplished any less valid IMHO...).

People who call themselves libertarians have told me these statements before.

And people who call themselves christian have told me we have to kill the muslims before. What's your point? Anyone can call themselves anything,
that doesn't really mean much.

Are you really that caught up in what people say as compared to how valid what they claim actually is? I'm sorry for that, friend.

i agree, as Nolan has stated numerous times, it is not about any specific politics.

however, every Villain, Hero, Anti-Hero etc. has a motivation. and motivations oft time dabble in the same arenas as political ideologies do.

to pigeon hole a character's motivations into ONE ideologue (unless otherwise stated by the artist) is indeed rash and a disservice to the artist,
but we can certainly explore their motivations without fearing if we tread into some ideological territory or another.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.